Held Ball Player Control
 

During a “junior varsity” middle school (yes, we have them) girls game yesterday, I asked the site director (in this case the home team head coach) to have a fan removed. The fan was extremely loud (could not be ignored) and obnoxious while complaining about “rough play” and “someone‘s going to get hurt” (no profanity) while I was calling a held ball with severe but legal “action” (with both, one much stronger, “wrestling” for the ball).

The head coach cooperated and ejected the fan. By coincidence, the girls high school head coach happened to be at the site and escorted the fan out of the gymnasium.

I’ve got pretty thick skin; it was only the second time in forty-five years that I had asked a site director to have a fan removed.

On the ride home I was reflected on this play and came up with some questions not directly about this play.

These are questions about “player control”, specifically “holding the ball”, immediately prior to, or during, held ball situations.

1) A1 is dribbling in his frontcourt and loses the” handle” on the ball and it bounces away for him on the floor. A2 and B2 simultaneously pick the ball off the floor, both having two (yeah, I know the new rule) hands solidly on the ball. They “wrestle” for possession. Neither player moves a pivot foot. Before a whistle for a held ball, do either, or both, A2 and/or B2 have player control? Did Team A ever actually lose team control? Did Team B ever gain team control?

2) A1 shoots a try for goal that misses and rebounds. A2 and B2 simultaneously grab the rebounded ball, both having two (yeah, I know the new rule) hands solidly on the ball. They “wrestle” for possession. Neither player illegally moves a pivot foot. Before a whistle for a held ball, do either, or both, A2 and/or B2 have player control? Does either, or both, Team A and/or Team B have team control?

Can two opposing players both have player control (holding the ball) at the same time? Can two teams both have team control at the same time?

Add to these questions the complication of a timeout being requested, a request only granted to the team with player control (holding the ball).

3) A1 shoots a try for goal that misses and rebounds. A2 and B2 simultaneously grab the rebounded ball both having two hands solidly on the ball. They “wrestle” for possession. Before a held ball is whistled, A2 illegally moves his pivot foot while B2 does not illegally move his pivot foot. Did A2 travel?

After 45 years I don't see a reason to change or worry about it.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Player Control And Held Balls
 

My questions probably didn't require an introduction.

Sorry if I distracted from my held ball player control questions.

Aggressively Pull The Ball Away ...
 

A2 illegaly moved his pivot foot immediatey prior to a possible whistle for a held ball due to B2's attempt to aggressively pull the ball away from A2.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals
16. The official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

But what if I was still waiting to see if I could avoid calling a held ball?

4-25-1Held Ball: A held ball occurs when: Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

Control was "obtained" the instant that both players put four hands on the ball.

Why do many of us wait split seconds to see if one can "wrestle" control from the other?

The most prudent thing to do is call a held ball.

I don't know why anybody would want to call a travel and then have to explain to the coach. Everybody in the gym would expect a held ball to be called

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Held Ball ...
 

So, when two opponents get four (for ease of explanation) hands on the ball and only one travels, this should always be called a held ball.

I fully agree in real game situations, and always do such in my games, but I'm not sure that the rule language supports this.

Now, how about my timeout / held ball questions?

Causation ...
 

...i.e., the held ball caused the travel.

So whoever yells "time out" first while two players have the ball, that determines who's possession it was?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Timeout ...
 

That's what I'm asking.

In situations such as this, can two opposing players both have player control (holding the ball) at the same time, and if such players actually do have player control, what's to prevent a timeout request from one player (or, yikes, both players) being granted?

Change Of Status ...
 

Back in ancient times we had something called “Change of Status”.

The "Change of Status" rule primarily dealt with the transition of the ball from live to dead (or vice versa).

When it came to a held ball (two players wrestling for control), the rule was used to determine if a team could save the possession with a timeout.

As soon as two opponents both have firm hands on the ball, a held ball occurs. This is a "Change of Status" where player control is lost. Under the old status rules, if the official judged that the status had changed due to a held ball (even if the whistle hadn't blown yet), the timeout request was denied because player control no longer existed.

“Change of Status” also denied requests for timeouts when 80% of a count had been reached; four seconds of a five second count (inbounding, closely guarded), and eight seconds of a ten second count.

Am I correct in my explanation Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

Neither Player ...
 

Could it be that in situations such as this that when two opponents have four (yeah I know the new rule) hands "holding" (definition of player control) on to the ball, that neither player is considered to have player control (for timeout request purposes)?

I think it's more like the ruling when a violation and a foul happen at "the same time" -- officials must determine which happened first.

And, as Raymond said, the held ball happened first. ;)

So just to be clear. If two opponents are holding the ball simultaneously, whichever team requests a timeout Is awarded possession of the ball?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Change Of Status ...
 

That's what I'm asking, not in a real game, but in the rule language.

Up until 2003-04 (I thought it was way before that) the requesting and granting of timeouts was somewhat clear.

Rule 5, Section 8, Article 3: A timeout shall not be granted if it would involve a change of status of the ball (paraphrased).

After the NFHS removed change of status (live to dead or vice versa) from the rulebook, I don't believe that the replacement rule language ever quite "caught up" to such held ball timeout request situations.

Too Late ...
 

I actually remember ancient coaches trying to avoid violations (five seconds, ten seconds) and/or to maintain possession in an imminent held ball situation by requesting a timeout and ancient me telling them, "No, too late, change of status".

Three Words Needed ...
 

Exclusive player control.

New And Improved ...
 

Current rule language: Player control exists when a player is dribbling or holding a live ball.

Improved rule language: Player control exists when a player is dribbling or exclusively holding a live ball.

In ancient times, wasn't the term "tie ball"? "Held ball" referred to a 5 second count while closely guarded.

Jump Ball ???
 

All situations that are now held balls (and others) were actual jump balls, at one of the three jump ball circles on the court.

You've got my antennae up.

Did a five second closely guarded "violation" lead to a violation or to a "jump ball"?

Am I supposed to remember that?

It was the eighties man, lots of cocaine.

You Can Look It Up (Casey Stengel) ...
 

Robert Goodman piqued my curiosity, and not wanting to wait for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to climb up into his cold attic, I did some research myself.

For decades, beginning in the 1930s, if a player was closely guarded for five seconds, the official blew the whistle and called for an actual jump ball.

During the 1982-1983 season (my third season officiating), the NFHS decided to make the five-second violation a straight turnover.

The goal was to reward aggressive defense more directly and simplify the game.

All I brought up was the terminology, not the consequences.

In your words Billy, the simultaneous "control" would physically occur before a coach/player could call timeout so why would there ever be a concern about granting a TO? The held ball occurs first.

Also, unsure why you used the words "four hands" as there can be a held ball without 4 hands on the ball.

Lastly, there are times where a ball cannot be "wrestled" away without undue roughness however, there are also far more times where it can be wrestled away cleanly.

Your descriptions indicate a held ball followed by an apparent travel. I am confused in that, even you, acknowledge that the held ball occurred first. So, where would a travel be called. I'd say this...if a held ball situation occurs, then you can't have any other violation.

Rule Language ...
 

Lots of great points, but the current rule language doesn't quite match.

It's like some of us, some of whom weren't even alive in the early 1980s, are going back to a now long gone and forgotten change of status rule.

Four hands for clarity. I'm aware of the new interpretation.

Once again, I'm asking questions, not making conclusions.

Wrestled Away Cleanly ...
 

... and while we're waiting to see if it can be wrestled away cleanly (i.e., no held ball yet) can either player, both of whom have two hand's (for sake of clarity) holding (player control) the ball, request and be granted a timeout?

Note that the definition of player control does not currently say "exclusive" player control regarding requesting and being granted a timeout.

It just says player control which can simply mean holding the ball.

Deemed And Eligible ...
 

If said player is deemed to be holding the ball (in this case with two hands), he is also deemed to have player control, and thus is he also eligible to request and be granted a timeout?

Holding ...
 

Same question for this player's "wrestling" opponent, both of whom are holding the ball at the same time.

Seems like things were easier back when we had the change of status rules.

When they were deleted, the rule language never quite "caught up", yet the purpose and intent tradition still seems to have hung around, carried through generations of officials by observing older officials.

Shouldn't we just look at this practically? Time after time after time, I keep reading questions about crazy esoteric situations. If you follow the spirit of the rule, it's pretty simple - in these cases, timeouts are called to attempt to maintain possession of the ball where it looks like possession might be lost.

I'm interpreting your question as "should we allow a player from the other team to be able to put two hands on the ball and immediately call timeout, claiming player control so that team B can now inbound the ball as theirs?" That's silly and so far off the mark that it's laughable, whether the rulebook covered that case or not. If it's about a team retaining possession, then we have to ask if team B ever had possession in the first place, and it's clear they didn't.

Or what am I missing?

I'm constantly baffled by the focus on esoterics, when we as a society can't seem to get basic attitudes right toward officiating in the first place, from officials, coaches, and fans.

Literal Definition ...
 

They didn't? Why not? They were holding the ball. That's the actual literal definition of player control (the rule doesn't say player possession, it says player control) for the purpose of granting a request for a timeout (nor does it say exclusive player control).

Laughable? For many years, the NFHS thought enough of this situation to have a rule, called change of status, to cover this situation, "Sorry coach. Too late. Change of status".

Over forty years ago, for some reason, the NFHS got rid of the change of status rule, and left us with, what I believe to be, imperfect rule language

100% spot on assessment of what BM is suggesting.

If Billy believes this to be the case he should try it out in a game and see how it is received.

He's had 45 years to implement it.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Tens Of Thousands Of Officials ...
 

Read my posts.

I would never do this is a real game.

Why not?

Because since the removal of the change of status rule forty years ago tens of thousands of officials have continued to call it as if we still had the change of status rule, despite the fact that imperfect rule language says otherwise.

Purpose and intent, even forty year old purpose and intent, and possibly "tradition", trumps imperfect rule language.

Or, maybe because it's not the rule.

Team Control continues until .... An opponent secures control.

If B placing the hands on the ball means B has control, the A no longer has control. And, if B placing the hands on the ball means B has control, you can't have a held ball, because there was no "indue roughness."

So, B cannot have control by this action (alone).

If A requests TO before you judge that "undue roughness" will occur, grant the TO. Or, if you judge the "undue roughness" before the TO request then call the held ball. The second is the better choice in most circumstances (that is, unless A quickly removes the ball from B's grasp, or the TO request is VERY VERY early in the sequenc.)

Team Control ...
 

Great citation.

Almost exactly what I've been looking for for the past ten days.

I can live with this citation, but it has one minor problem.

Granting timeouts requires player control, not team control.

I can't come up with an exact citation for exactly when player control ends, but it seems to end when one is no longer holding, or no longer dribbling (i.e., interrupted dribble) the ball.

While I didn't like the 80% of a count part of the old change of status rule, the held ball (jump ball) part the rule regarding timeout requests was very useful; "Sorry coach. Too late. Change of status".

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Great practical advice.

Are you sure this blanket statement is correct?

Player Control ...
 

4-12-1: Control, Player: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

5-8-3-A: Time-Out, Stopping Play: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, must be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team.

There is team control but no player control during an interrupted dribble, or when a ball is being passed among teammates.

Officials would not grant a request for a timeout during these two situations.

After a made basket, there might not be player control but it is at the disposal of the team and therefore, a TO may be granted. Or, how about resumption of play procedures where there is team control but no player control.

Disposal ...
 

I was only trying to distinguish between team control and player control for the purpose of requesting and being granted a timeout during a held ball "wrestling" situation.

But you are 100% correct, disposal certainly means granting a request for a timeout, but was not part of my two situatons (interrupted dribble, ball is being passed among teammates), and certainly is not any part of a held ball "wrestling" situation.

But definitely a nice clarificaton. Thanks.

LOL!!!

You're the one who likes to nit-pick everybody's posts to make sure every word fits every rule being discussed, so you should hold yourself to a certain standard yourself.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Do Or Do Not. There Is No Try (Yoda, 1980)
 

I certainly should. I try, but it doesn't always happen.